View Single Post
Old
11-14-2003, 12:38 PM
  #31
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 28,014
vCash: 500
[QUOTE]Since the problem is not really salaries, nothing changes.

I cannot agree fully with that statement. To be sure, increased revenue is one way (the ideal way) for the league to work it's way out of its economic troubles. But it's not an "either/or" situation. That is, reducing costs is another part of the solution. And frankly, the high costs of maintaining an NHL payroll - even for a lousy team - have translated to ownership having to price their product out of the market in some cities.

Quote:
This is why the owners want "cost certainty". They want to eliminate elite teams. That is the restructuring they want to see.
May be semantics on my part, but I don't think owners necessarily "want" parity, but they certainly will accept it as a trade-off (means) for cost certainty. Which, as a fan, I detest strongly.

Quote:
There are lots of ways to increase the owner share of the pie if that is what is required. The easiest way is to agree to a global revenue pool to be divided and agree to a player share. Then hold back 10% of all player salaries during the season and adjust once the final revenues are in.
Agree with that premise, and owners need to be more progressive toward that end. That said, along with revenue distribution, revenue generation and cost reduction are critical issues that need to be addressed, obviously.

Quote:
We make tickets easier to sell in Nashville if Colorado is not nearly as good as they are. It is fine if Ottawa is good for the next decade, but it is not fine for the league if they dominate like Detroit has dominated for the past decade. It is not fine if Detroit dominates for the next ten years like they have dominated for the past ten years.
And, unfortunately, a lot of fans (not you) apparently buy into this line of thinking, whereby each season is like a lottery, and every city has a chance to be champion...or the worse team in the league. And where the best organizations - draft/develop/trade/invest well - are penalized for success by not being allowed to maintain their roster, thanks to an artifical price restriction that leads to rampant free agency. Just like the NFL that many misguidedly hold up as a shining example. A shining example of how to make $ for it's owners, to be sure, but not for competition and entertainment value in the minds of many of us, including apparently people within the game:

"ESPN Sunday NFL Countdown analyst Steve Young blames inconsistent play on free agency, which he says is 'killing this whole league. It's becoming the watered-down football league.' Adds Fox NFL Sunday's Howie Long: 'Because of the salary cap and free agency, you are in a constant flux of players going from team to team. The salary cap affects your depth, and free agency is both good and bad. It allows for player movement, but you have to deal with assimilating new players onto your roster.' "

(Excerpted from: "NFL analysts less than thrilled about league's extreme parity" by Rudy Martzke USA TODAY, 11/14/03 http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slu...oday&type=lgns)


Quote:
Me, I think it is terrible....I do like to see great hockey teams even if they are based in the wrong city.
My sentiments exactly.

Trottier is offline